Share

America Needs More Government Surveillance—On Fish

An underwater view of a coho salmon (oncorhynchus kisutch) swimming in a river in Juneau, Alaska.

Seth K. Hughes/Corbis

Here's an idea: Maybe the NSA can put some of its surplus spy expertise into the oceans.

For years, the US has tried to drive its fishing policies with data—collecting information about numbers of fish caught, along with their species, ages, and locations—so it can better protect species and ecosystems that are overfished. But the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration can't quite match the NSA's data-monitoring skills, leaving fisheries in limbo. They want to preserve the country's aquatic resources, but they can't do that without good science to guide their actions.

Last week, the House Committee on Natural Resources passed some controversial changes to the law governing fisheries that could loosen some of the scientific restrictions that are supposed to direct fishing rules. These changes aren't in effect yet—the bill still needs to go through the House floor, the Senate, and also the President—but the effort is worth paying attention to, especially if you work in fishing, fish recreationally, live near the sea, eat seafood, or care about the long-term health of the oceans.

The bill is a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act1, a 40-year-old law governing US fisheries. It was originally written to protect US fish stocks from foreign anglers, but was later revised to look out for the long-term longevity of ocean species. The biggest changes came in 2006, when the bill was changed to emulate the so-called "Alaska Model," which sets up annual catch limits and stock building requirements based on the best available science.

But the problem, according to those in favor of the bill's revisions, is that in many areas, the best available science is pretty paltry. Right now, most fisheries run on sparse data, which results in precautionary fishing directives. "It is an aspirational bill and it sets a very high bar, but for it to work, Congress needed to fund the science to that level," says Robert Vanasse, the executive director of Saving Seafood, a fishing industry-funded advocacy group.

There are eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and Alaska's (technically, the North Pacific) is the most well managed. In fact, Alaska has some of the most sustainably managed fisheries in the world. But those fisheries were developed along with modern marine science. Data collection was built into the system.

By contrast, most of the other fisheries in the country predate fisheries science, and many of them fish for species that aren't as easily monitored as, for instance, salmon, which funnel themselves neatly into rivers. Many fisheries managers have felt pinched, because the 2006 bill Congress asked for a lot of science that it hasn't been willing to pay for. "It would be fantastic if we could manage every fishery the way the Magnuson-Stevens Act says we should. But in order to meet that bar, you have to have the science. And in order to have the science, you need to fund the science," says Vanasse.

The new bill doesn't necessarily throw scientific requirements away: Instead, it loosens the ties between the scientific requirements and the guidelines that govern the fishing of each species. This gives fisheries managers more room for setting catch limits, eases regulations on by-catch, and gives them a tremendous amount of leeway for developing recovery plans for impacted species.

This sounds great if you're a fisherman, but to conservationists the changes more closely resemble a bovine releasing a large amount of excrement. "By rejecting the Alaska Model and returning flexibility to the regional fishery councils, we’re concerned that it will be a big step backwards," says Ted Morton, of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Morton fears the changes will lead to overfishing. And not just of marquee species like cod and red snapper (more about those guys a little later), but also of feeder fish—the tiny swimmers that get scooped up by the billions, but are also the backbone of many marine ecosystem. He says the bill also sets a bad precedent by letting economic needs dictate how our fisheries are managed, creating loopholes for industry-friendly fisheries managers.

The bill isn't just fishermen versus environmentalists. There are also sections that pit fishermen against fishermen. In the Gulf of Mexico, red snapper has been a big point of contention between commercial and recreational fishermen for years, and the new bill would exempt the fish from management. This could put a big cut into the commercial red snapper business, and lead to shortages for restaurants and people who aren't willing to shell out big bucks for a half-day of angling from the back of a puker boat.

There are many other items of note in this bill, and considerable nuance of opinion between the people who are interested in it. But the one thing that unifies everybody is that the US needs to learn a lot more about its fisheries, which would take a lot more effort—and money—than congress has been willing to commit. "There’s a joke that modeling fisheries is just like modeling forests. Except the trees move around, eat each other, and you're counting them at night," says Vanasse.

1 The Magnuson-Stevens Act dates back to 1976, and it was originally implemented to establish the US's claims to its fishing jurisdictions to 200 nautical miles. This is about 230 regular miles. Fun fact: One nautical mile is equivalent to 1/60th of one degree of Earth's longitude. The earth is exactly 21,600 nautical miles in girth, at the equator. In regular miles, the same measurement comes out to an unsatisfying 24,902. (back)